Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Alexander Edler | #23 | D


-SN-
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

The other thing that is apparent is how much Tanev protected Hughes. Edler actually got his break when Vcr suffered so many D injuries and he never really looked back. He's played with so many coaches,  Vigneault , Torts, Wee Willy and now Green. He also played with a lot of quality D such as Ohlund and Hamhuis and flash back Luc Bourdoin, Salo and Bieska. So it's hard to judge for sure

Tbh I liked how much Schenn protected Hughes more, but yes Tanev helped Hughes because he was a defensive minded first kind of guy, and that's exactly what Hughes needs as a partner, basically you need to find a Willie Mitchell somewhere for Hughes, but if guys like Myers and Edler are jumping up into the rush paired up with Hughes well that's an automatic fail, but if Edler is still on this team well that's an automatic fail again :lol:

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Tbh I liked how much Schenn protected Hughes more, but yes Tanev helped Hughes because he was a defensive minded first kind of guy, and that's exactly what Hughes needs as a partner, basically you need to find a Willie Mitchell somewhere for Hughes, but if guys like Myers and Edler are jumping up into the rush paired up with Hughes well that's an automatic fail, but if Edler is still on this team well that's an automatic fail again :lol:

C'mon Edler and Hughes play the same side  ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

If he was a UFA I would do it, but because he isn't and Benning let him go for nothing, trying to trade to get a player back you let walk isn't good.

Has nothing to do with trading for a player we let go for nothing.

 

We let him go for nothing because the contract Calgary gave him was not something we were interested in doing. Simple as that

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Whorvat said:

Has nothing to do with trading for a player we let go for nothing.

 

We let him go for nothing because the contract Calgary gave him was not something we were interested in doing. Simple as that

Exactly this. I can’t believe people are still so bitter about losing Tanev. The contract, plus the injury history, would have been too big of a risk. 

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

If he was a UFA I would do it, but because he isn't and Benning let him go for nothing, trying to trade to get a player back you let walk isn't good.

If you can't afford someone, it doesn't mean you're going to be able to resign them. It's a pretty simple concept don't you think? It doesn't even matter what people think about Benning or Tanev or even how we got to this point. Signings require money.

 

In my opinion, this whole concept of "letting a player go for nothing" is effectively meaningless and 100% false when every player costs something. No matter what, you still get cap relief.

Edited by The Lock
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Whorvat said:

Has nothing to do with trading for a player we let go for nothing.

 

We let him go for nothing because the contract Calgary gave him was not something we were interested in doing. Simple as that

Actually it does, because if you let the guy walk the year before and then the following year you trade assets to just get him again, you're a horrible GM if you're doing that :picard:

 

The fact that Benning didn't get anything for Tanev or especially Markstrom after committing all those years to him and turning him into #1 waste all those years to get absolutely nothing back, is actually a joke tbh.

  • Haha 1
  • RoughGame 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Actually it does, because if you let the guy walk the year before and then the following year you trade assets to just get him again, you're a horrible GM if you're doing that :picard:

 

The fact that Benning didn't get anything for Tanev or especially Markstrom after committing all those years to him and turning him into #1 waste all those years to get absolutely nothing back, is actually a joke tbh.

You mean trade Marky and Tanev at the 2020 TDL, because the thought is those two guys will not be extended?  Those two guys were pretty important to the team getting in the playoffs, and winning a couple series.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

If you can't afford someone, it doesn't mean you're going to be able to resign them. It's a pretty simple concept don't you think? It doesn't even matter what people think about Benning or Tanev or even how we got to this point. Signings require money.

 

In my opinion, this whole concept of "letting a player go for nothing" is effectively meaningless and 100% false when every player costs something. No matter what, you still get cap relief.

It's effectively meaningless if you're a contender, but if you not and your rebuilding in a way, you should be trying to stock the cupboards as much as possible and not let guys walk and get nothing, that poor management. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alflives said:

You mean trade Marky and Tanev at the 2020 TDL, because the thought is those two guys will not be extended?  Those two guys were pretty important to the team getting in the playoffs, and winning a couple series.  

Yeah what was the point really? Just to get their feet wet to then just accept failure for another 2 years... What a waste.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Yeah what was the point really? Just to get their feet wet to then just accept failure for another 2 years... What a waste.

Actually, yes.  Experiencing playoff hockey is huge for a young core.  Not many young cores have a linear development.  They make the playoffs, get a taste, and then step back.  But that first taste is really important.  

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My frustration with this organization has been going on since 94, I'm tired of losing and I'm tired of being happy with mediocre crap, I'm tired with this organization not wanting to let go of dead weight, I'm tired of hearing that everything is going to be okay when in reality it's not, but so many continue to turn the other way thinking everything is just peachy and fine when it really it's not. 

 

It seems like when you look at defensive stats for last year, the Canucks are in the bottom 6 it seems like in every category, but what do the Canucks do... Just bring them all back, wow :picard:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Actually, yes.  Experiencing playoff hockey is huge for a young core.  Not many young cores have a linear development.  They make the playoffs, get a taste, and then step back.  But that first taste is really important.  

Yeah then they just loss for 2 years after and are miserable again, I'm sure that really helps....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Actually it does, because if you let the guy walk the year before and then the following year you trade assets to just get him again, you're a horrible GM if you're doing that :picard:

 

The fact that Benning didn't get anything for Tanev or especially Markstrom after committing all those years to him and turning him into #1 waste all those years to get absolutely nothing back, is actually a joke tbh.

You really wanted JB to trade them away in the middle of a playoff push? Lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm actually on board to fire Benning, at first I was willing to give him this year coming up before completely turning on him, but thanks to some posters I'm definitely on the get ride of Benning train now, he's horrible this team has gone no where under him and still aren't going anywhere, what a mess and disaster and even our young core guys are soft and weak, this teams a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Now I'm actually on board to fire Benning, at first I was willing to give him this year coming up before completely turning on him, but thanks to some posters I'm definitely on the get ride of Benning train now, he's horrible this team has gone no where under him and still aren't going anywhere, what a mess and disaster and even our young core guys are soft and weak, this teams a mess.

Why would you let some posters opinions on the situation shape yours? I'd suggest basing it off of what he does this offseason. Or whatever you feel, but not on someone else's opinion. Just my opinion.....that you don't have to take.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...